Fighting Irish: Who owns a landmark asset?

"Burly" guards.... not in the photo! ;)

There was a constitutional court judge named Susanna Stanik, whom Yushchenko at one time removed, because Susanna's mother suddenly became the beneficiary of a lot of property and wealth, while the constitutional court was considering a particular matter.

Is Serhiy Stanik, another judge involved in the Fighting Irish case, any ralation to Susanna Stanik?

no sure is there is a relationship. HOWEVER it needs to be stated that the courts rightly ruled that Yushchenko's attempt to remove Susanna Stanik was illegal.

Yushchenko's interference in the independence and operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court in 2007 was unconstitutional. It was designed to prevent the courts from ruling against Yushchenko's unlawful and unconstitutional dismissal of Ukraine's previous Parliament. Yushchenko's illegal action in 2007 undermined confidence in the democratic system and caused seven months of political and civil unrest.

.

Susanna Stanik was cleared of any wrong doing and she was re-instated to the Constitutional Court bench. Later to resign of her own volition.

Yushchenko should have been held to account for his actions, his misuse and abuse of power and breach of Ukraine's Constitution. Had he been in a functioning western democracy he would have faced impeachment for his actions.

Like any settlement of a divorced estate is that they put the assets on the open market and sell them to the highest bidder. The value of the asset is then paid in proportion to the shareholders investment and subsequently used to pay off any debts. The rights of minority shareholders are equal to that of majority shareholders. It would be wrong to use the value of minor shareholding to off set the losses of the majority shareholders other business interests.

The majority shareholder need to either buy out the minority shareholder or seek court approval for a fore sale mortgagee auction. This sort of shareholder ownership dispute can and does happen in the west. It is also a common means of holding back creditors that seek to foreclose and in doing so devalue the assets of the holding company to the disadvantage of minority shareholders. It is also a tactic used by an unsecured creditor to secure the money owed to them. They company needs to settle the debt claim in order to secure free unencumbered title. I am not sure there is anything unbetold in this case other that the parties excising their legal rights